Al Qaeda, strategy, and what would be "success"

[pigeonmeister]

Originally Posted by dcmdale

Many people believe that Pham Xuan An, one of the major American reporters during the Vietnam war (Time, New York Herald Tribune, Christian Science Monitor) and secretly a Colonel in the North Vietnamesse army, was the key to the war. He was named "Hero of the People's Armed Forces" after the war.

Facinating character- at one time a quadruple agent! In the 50's he was moonlighting for France’s Deuxieme Bureau, working for his cousin’s indigenous Vietnamese intelligence organization and its C.I.A. sponsor, and reporting to his Communist handlers!

An was actually so pro-American (he felt that after Vietnam had rescued its independence the US would become good friends again) that he was for a time sent to re-education camp by the commies after the war. Whilst he was indeed a vital spy, I believe that his greater worth came from his access to strategic intelligence- rather than his affect on US domestic support via his reporting.

[Feltan]

Originally Posted by pigeonmeister

...If America fails in Iraq, then doubtless people like you will blame the left for its lack of national resolve. It will be nothing to do with sectarianism, inadequate or unrealictic post war reconstruction, a porous borders with Syria, an inadequate police force, a poorly considered understanding of Iraq political culture, the basic incompatabilty of US military doctrine and effective 'hearts and minds' operations. The fact that there is no precedent for this kind of mission succeding and no historical precident that could provide optimism that democracy can be imposed across sectarian lines, I assume, will be ignored.

You sound like one of those people who think that it is Al Jazeera not US policy/actions that is the main cause of anti-Americanism. It's not me- its you, but it's also- not them- it's us!

And you sound like a snarky back bencher supporting Neville Chamberlain over Winston Churchill in 1939.

Regards,
Feltan

[jBirch]

Originally Posted by Feltan

And you sound like a snarky back bencher supporting Neville Chamberlain over Winston Churchill in 1939.

Regards,
Feltan

And who is the one doing the blitzkreig style invading in this particular build up to world war, hmmm? *grin* Iraqi underground, French underground...what's the diff?

James.

[pigeonmeister]

Originally Posted by dcmdale

I would opine that Al Q strategy was more unified, though perhaps still loose, when they were able to operate more openly. Certainly, they talk about meetings where strategy was discussed. Things have changed.

Things have changed indeed. I am still unsure what you mean by Al Q- were the London bombers member of Al Q? Are we just talking about Islamic terrorists or those with specific allegiance to Bin Laden?

Bin Laden set up two types of A Q (The base). One as the Taliban- with a physical base. The other as a self operating, self sufficient group of cells who could operate without sanction or permission from anybody (although it is clear that some did seek approval of high ranking Bin Laden associates). What I am saying is that strategy (for these International jihadist cells at least) is so uncodified it cannot be called a 'top down' process in terms of direct orders to 'soldiers'. The first A Q was almost destroyed, the second (terror cells) remains but is not part of A Q strategy as it was designed to be self sufficient.

But I don't mean that A Q doesn't exist as a force- it does, but only really in the area that it as carved for itself in North Waziristan (tribal Pakistan).Here al-Qaeda No 2 Ayman al-Zawahiri calls the shots. But then what we are really talking about is the remnants of Taliban A Q- not always connected to other loosely affiliated regional groups. There is nothing that really connects A Q in Iraq to Afghanistan.

So strategy of the Afghan/Pakistan/Taliban A Q is to gain a base (as it had in Afganistan and has in Pakistan) so as to achieve an abilty to provide a unified strategy for the various jihadi theatres around the world. In essence A Q could stop hiding, come out into the open and operate as something other than shodowy terror cells. This would involve the establishment of an Islamic state (base) from which calls for jihad could be issued and jihadi forces prepared. Bin Laden has already created a network of terror cells (totaly ununified in strategy and ambition) capable of one-off hit and run attacks on Western targets- now A Q want something more overtly perminant.

The other main split is about whether to take the fight to pro-US nations like Pakistan, Saudi Arabia or just to concentrate on America. The senior Taliban al-Qaeda leadership believes that only Musharraf is "pro-dajal" (anti God and thus a target), and not the Pakistani Army; therefore for the time being they want to leave Pakistan alone and keep their focus on the US.

Iran may become the opportunity for such a physical base- but then this could be a difficult and unlikely relationship. A Q admire aspects of the Iranian revolution but Iran is more nationalist in outlook. The problem is that Arabs are not natural allies of shia Iran. Iran was quick to condemn 9/11 and Bin Laden as unIslamic.The Iranian government were staunch enemies of the Taliban as well. But then threats and war make strange bedfellows. The link could be Hamas or Hezbollah- who Iran openly support.

Thus strategy is this: To control a 'space' somewhere. This would include appointing an ameer (commander) whose name would be announced, and al-Qaeda's irregular fighting would be organised under one command. The existing setup of small, virtually independent cells would be subsumed under the single command, and no one would operate on their own, as has been the trend since al-Qaeda lost their base in Afghanistan following the ouster of the Taliban in late 2001, and the intense pressure of the US-led "war on terror", which saw many communication and financial links severed.

The cells would fall under single commands in Iraq and Afghanistan, from where they would be directed for external operations, such as launching attacks on the US.

So the strategy is to get in a position to have a coherent strategy!

[dcmdale]

Originally Posted by pigeonmeister

Remmber that Ho Chi Minh was never initially a communist- he was a nationalist who America turned to communism because they didn't stick to their ideological principle of supporting anti colonialism.

Often forgotten.

I agree with Feltan that the press (whether of the traditional variety or internet based [blogging, etc.]) is as much a part of war as anything else that can be manipulated for benefit. The press influences decisions made by people too distant to know the reality for themselves.

I think you speak more to the reality "on the ground."

I remember during Vietnam a video taken from a gunship where the gunner needed to adjust his gunsight. He chose a farmer working in a paddy as the target. You could hear the copter crew laughing as the farmer dove into the water with bullets splashing all around.

Showing the clip in the U.S. told Americans that their military was behaving badly. Certainly didn't help in the public decision making process going on in the U.S. The clip probably would not have been shown (about U.S. troops anyway) in WWII (though similar things almost certainly occurred.)

The widow presumably didn't need the press report to help form her opinions of Americans.

Military forces can impose themselves on a hostile populace--at least for a time. The success of such an operation, however, often is dictated by their willingness to accept the implications of that occupation. There are examples throughout history of situations that have gone both ways. The question of whether the all out war that the hawks wanted would have had a different result will never be answered. Fundamentally, I think Vietnam came down to a realization by Americans that we weren't the great saviors of humanity that we thought we were and that we weren't really engaging in saving freedom and democracy nearly as much as we thought we were.

[pigeonmeister]

Originally Posted by Feltan

And you sound like a snarky back bencher supporting Neville Chamberlain over Winston Churchill in 1939.

Regards,
Feltan

Pathetic- were you in the army by any chance?

[dcmdale]

Originally Posted by pigeonmeister

Things have changed indeed. I am still unsure what you mean by Al Q- were the London bombers member of Al Q? Are we just talking about Islamic terrorists or those with specific allegiance to Bin Laden?

The original discussion was around the strategy in 2001 and how it has played out.

I believe that one of the requirements of this type of warfare is to set up the organization in a manner that it can survive loss of central leadership / base. They certainly did this successfully.

What constitutes Al Q today is an open question.

[Slim]

Originally Posted by pigeonmeister

Pathetic- were you in the army by any chance?

Haha. Too funny. Your brilliant response certainly trumped Feltan.

[Slim]

Originally Posted by Feltan

And you sound like a snarky back bencher supporting Neville Chamberlain over Winston Churchill in 1939.

Regards,
Feltan

Backbench?? Based on the collection of jewels buried in PM's catalog of multi-page rants, you can clearly see he would have been down in front waving the pom-poms.

[Feltan]

Originally Posted by Slim

Backbench?? Based on the collection of jewels buried in PM's catalog of multi-page rants, you can clearly see he would have been down in front waving the pom-poms.

True, but backbencher is more of a term relating to minority party.....in a parliment, it can be any nut-job that happens to get elected and can't become part of the governing coalition.

Regards,
Feltan

[pigeonmeister]

Originally Posted by Slim

Backbench?? Based on the collection of jewels buried in PM's catalog of multi-page rants, you can clearly see he would have been down in front waving the pom-poms.

Whilst Slim's constibutions are a treasure trove of insight, balance and considered analysis. We get the realist Slim- 'Europeans can't be trusted to fight'. But then we also see the brilliance of Slim's debating skills- 'Pigeonmeister your a...... (insert either): communist/Islamic terrorist/appeaser.' What a mind!

I wasn't being funny- I was making a broader point about the danger of sending in the military to achieve a complex and political goal in Iraq. The fact is that Feltan thinks that war's are won and lost by the US media alone and that those who disagree, for what reason I don't know- but a revealing response anyway, would have supported Nazi Germany 70 years ago (My family fought in WW2- and were bombed out in the blitz). Anyway Feltan probably thinks uncovering Abu Ghraib was a shocking act of treachery and aiding the enemy- evidence of the US public not backing the 'Home Team'.

The idea that the US is limited in what it can achieve, only by the constraints of the US press corps, is just unsustainable ravings by a frustrated and paranoid group of buffoons who have recently had their world view comprehensibly debunked in Iraq. Clutching at straws would be an apt description.

[pigeonmeister]

Originally Posted by dcmdale

Military forces can impose themselves on a hostile populace--at least for a time. The success of such an operation, however, often is dictated by their willingness to accept the implications of that occupation. There are examples throughout history of situations that have gone both ways. The question of whether the all out war that the hawks wanted would have had a different result will never be answered. Fundamentally, I think Vietnam came down to a realization by Americans that we weren't the great saviors of humanity that we thought we were and that we weren't really engaging in saving freedom and democracy nearly as much as we thought we were.

The difference is that in Vietnam after the US could no longer 'impose themselves on a hostile populace' they simply left and Vietnam became (and remains) a Communist state. There were very little strategic ramifications for US national defense, bar the sense of national frustration that guided the following years of foreign policy, following an American withdrawal. There was certainly no increased threat to the US homeland. Given what we have said about Al Qaeda desperately desiring a physical space in which to re-organise and coordinate a more unified strategy to take on America, a failed Iraqi state would be a very significant threat to US national security. Thus a US withdrawal in Iraq, leading to the implosion of any Iraqi state authority and certain civil war (a kind of Somalia), carries a much greater risk of actual military cost and potential danger. In Vietnam it was just a blow to US ideological prestige and left only huge psychological dangers for US strategists.

I agree that public opinion effects the war effort, I agree that war crimes in WW2 were veneered by the overwhelming post-war sense of righteousness the war carried with it. I agree that Vietnam endowed a sense of a 'realization by Americans that we weren't the great saviors of humanity that we thought we were and that we weren't really engaging in saving freedom and democracy nearly as much as we thought we were'.

But I also believe that public opinion was not the reason America failed in its aims in Vietnam. I fundementaly believe this to be the same in Iraq. Both were flawed conceptual and, in essense, unachievable given the circumstances. Public opionion has to realise this in order to create the 'tipping point' that I agree can be vital (politicaly), yet it is my opinion that the public keep an open mind until it is very clear that the chances of a succesful outcome are negligable. In Vietnam it took years and years, In Iraq less so- yet even now are a majority of Americans demanding an immmediate withdrawal, I don't think so?

[Feltan]

Originally Posted by pigeonmeister

....The fact is that Feltan thinks that war's are won and lost by the US media alone and that those who disagree, for what reason I don't know- but a revealing response anyway, would have supported Nazi Germany 70 years ago (My family fought in WW2- and were bombed out in the blitz). Anyway Feltan probably thinks uncovering Abu Ghraib was a shocking act of treachery and aiding the enemy- evidence of the US public not backing the 'Home Team'.

The idea that the US is limited in what it can achieve, only by the constraints of the US press corps, is just unsustainable ravings by a frustrated and paranoid group of buffoons who have recently had their world view comprehensibly debunked in Iraq. Clutching at straws would be an apt description.

That isn't a "fact," and you should not speak for others. Doing so is both inaccurate and rude.

Corporations pay on the order of a $1 Million minute of air time during prime viewing events, and a few hundred thousand per minute for during non-peak times. They do this to sell widgets, and they pay those enormous sums because, economically, it is worth it. Corporations know the value of air time, and the value of getting their message across -- they can put a dollar value on it.

The news media gets hundreds of minutes per day to put their message out. Their message makes a difference. Their message is not, and has never been, merely disseminating news facts. There is always spin to the news, whether it is called editorial comment or built-in bias. The news media moguls also know the value of their message, and guard it with passion -- always casting themselves as above the fray.....objective reporters of fact....above interjecting personal opinion into hard news. That is, of course, complete crap -- but it is what they want you to believe.

I do not believe victory in Iraq can be acheived solely by a supportive media, but I do believe defeat can come about from relentless propoganda, mis-statement of facts, slanted reporting and a numbing drumbeat of negative reporting.

I certainly don't want it one sided the other way either. Things like Abu Ghraib did need to come out into the open -- we should never be on the side of illegal and inhumane activity. However, how many stories do you hear on the positive side of things? Did you know that re-enlistment rates for units in Iraq are higher than those units not in a combat zone? Hardly a damning statement when solidiers in the conflict are supporting it by re-enlisting -- and you won't see that on CNN. Nor the rebuilding efforts, nor the fact that over 80% of the country is peaceful and operating without incident, etc, etc, etc.

Regards,
Feltan

[pigeonmeister]

[quote]

Originally Posted by Feltan

That isn't a "fact," and you should not speak for others. Doing so is both inaccurate and rude.

I apologise for any rudeness (although to be fair you called me a nut job and were ' accurate' enough to imply that I had some association to politics before WW2!).

In terms of being inaccurate I am only partly apologetic. You said:

"The only way the U.S. will lose this conflict in any normal sense of the word is if national resolve fades. The apt parallel to the Vietnam conflct is that, like the North Vietnamese, the radical fundamentalist Muslims have figured out that the U.S. press is an available multi-billion dollar weapon they could never afford nor hope to create on their own."

To me this statement contains so many inaccuracies I cannot find one part of it to be sustainable. I stated that you think war's are won and lost by the US press corps- due to (by your own implication) its negative effect on 'national resolve'. Now it seems to me that the above statement suggests that you believe that America's aims in Iraq (as in Vietnam) will fail or succeed (lose or win if you will) ONLY because of attitudes (or national resolve), under the influence of negative reporting, in America. Thus it is not too much of a leap to suggest, as I did, that: 'The fact is that Feltan thinks that war's are won and lost by the US media alone'.

In short I think that America's aims are limited by the nature of the conflict itself, and not how it is reported on the home front. Plus I would say that the nature of the conflict is such that there is very little accountabilty to US troops, most of the expositions have come from OTHER SOLDIERS and not evil journalists. Iraq has such little security that mostly it cannot be reported on anything but the US army's terms, journalists rely on US army infomation and cannot really move from outside the Green Zone for fear of death. Plus most Americans don't get their news from Counter-Punch or even the New York Times. I would say that substantial (probabaly even more) airtime has been given to the vigerous defense of US policy in Iraq- I would even suggest that the US public receive a greatly sanitised version of the aftermath of US strikes (on civilians). Yet are pretty good at showing the civilian cost in the aftermath of a terrorist attack.

The US government are also old masters of disseminating news 'facts', this is a two way process that should not be blamed entirely on editors. The US govt is happy to put its own spin on things, less happy when they get a taste of their own medicine.

I do not believe victory in Iraq can be acheived solely by a supportive media, but I do believe defeat can come about from relentless propoganda, mis-statement of facts, slanted reporting and a numbing drumbeat of negative reporting.

Does that make sense? You are still arguing that if Iraq descended into chaos, parliament is disolved, Sistani is killed by a Sunni assasin, civilian deaths rise to 200 a day. If amidst all this chaos the US media concentrated on a school opening (or even in the event of a news blackout) then Iraq would have a chance to rise out civil war. Yet if all this happened and the US media were negative then this would be the deciding factor. If (as unlikely or likely as it might be) Iraq desends into civil war it will be due to a sectarian trigger, whatever the US media report or even if they don't at all, Iraq will be screwed.

I certainly don't want it one sided the other way either. Things like Abu Ghraib did need to come out into the open -- we should never be on the side of illegal and inhumane activity.

The pro war lobby have a very powerful platform- there is an enormous opportunity for them to give their side. I wouldn't say that coverage is one sided.

However, how many stories do you hear on the positive side of things? Did you know that re-enlistment rates for units in Iraq are higher than those units not in a combat zone?

Attitudes of soldiers is obviously not something I can really comment on, yet is it not possible that such re-enlistments are equally due to a huge sense of duty, comradery and unity soldiers feel to their immediate colleagues (in times of war)?I gues some feel that this is what they trained for, and miss the action when they leave. I agree that is an interesting statistic though.

Hardly a damning statement when solidiers in the conflict are supporting it by re-enlisting -- and you won't see that on CNN. Nor the rebuilding efforts, nor the fact that over 80% of the country is peaceful and operating without incident, etc, etc, etc.

The sustainability of US public opinion (and their willingness to invest in terms of money and sacrifice) is proportional to its perceptions of a succesful outcome and a credible perception of when this sacrifice will end. The US government are entirely to blame for the public not being able to define what success would be, this is due to their own shifting war aims. They are also entirely to blame for the loss of belief in a credible 'exit strategy', because of their 'best case scenerio' war and reconstruction planning. The US soldiers have, as many eminent former starred Generals have said, been let down by their defense secretary- not really the US media. Rebuilding efforts are not acceptable- you don't need CNN reporting to show that. All of the money pledged so far for Iraq's reconstruction adds up to roughly $60 billion, according to a report last July by the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO). The true total, now, is likely to be closer to $100billion. The Marshall Plan (from 1948-51) only spent $90 billion in todays money- look at the difference in what has been achieved. In 2003 the TOTAL cost was projected to be $55 billion. The facts speak for themselves, even if we can agree that some Lefty papers are instinctively negative and some editors have got it in for US policy makers.

[dcmdale]

Originally Posted by pigeonmeister

There were very little strategic ramifications for US national defense, bar the sense of national frustration that guided the following years of foreign policy, following an American withdrawal. There was certainly no increased threat to the US homeland.

There was a belief, particularly during the Kennedy/Johnson administrations that Vietnam was strategicly important. As it played out, the fears were misplaced.

Originally Posted by pigeonmeister

But I also believe that public opinion was not the reason America failed in its aims in Vietnam.

As I have said before, whether a strictly military solution would have ended in a different result is something we will never know and we could debate for a long time. There is no doubt in my mind that the decision to withdraw was entirely based on domestic political considerations. I didn't go to Vietnam (my draft card listed me a 1A, but my lottery number didn't come up) so I have little insight into the reality there beyond what the press was feeding. I was in high school during much of that time and saw the change first hand. When I started high school, we recited the Pledge of Allegiance every morning before class and teachers talked openly about how we were different than other nations and that God has destined truth, justice, and the American way to prevail throughout the world. By the time I left, these same teachers were wearing black armbands and burning ROTC buildings. Even those who continued to favor U.S. involvement (probably still a majority), didn’t like what the debate was doing to the country.

While I think that jbirch and felton give to much credit to the power of the press, I think you are giving it too little. Even your own analysis of what happened in Vietnam could be seen as simply a rehash of press reports. Unless you were there (and had insight into what was happening throughout the country), what else would you base your opinions on? The truth is that any Vietnamese refugee that I have ever talked to would say that neither of us have no idea of what we are talking about in terms of what was happening there. (They, of course, are biased, but at least have some reality to compare press reports to).

[dcmdale]

Originally Posted by pigeonmeister

The sustainability of US public opinion (and their willingness to invest in terms of money and sacrifice) is proportional to its perceptions of a succesful outcome and a credible perception of when this sacrifice will end. The US government are entirely to blame for the public not being able to define what success would be, this is due to their own shifting war aims. They are also entirely to blame for the loss of belief in a credible 'exit strategy', because of their 'best case scenerio' war and reconstruction planning. The US soldiers have, as many eminent former starred Generals have said, been let down by their defense secretary- not really the US media. Rebuilding efforts are not acceptable- you don't need CNN reporting to show that. All of the money pledged so far for Iraq's reconstruction adds up to roughly $60 billion, according to a report last July by the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO). The true total, now, is likely to be closer to $100billion. The Marshall Plan (from 1948-51) only spent $90 billion in todays money- look at the difference in what has been achieved. In 2003 the TOTAL cost was projected to be $55 billion. The facts speak for themselves, even if we can agree that some Lefty papers are instinctively negative and some editors have got it in for US policy makers.

When I practiced law, one of the first things I learned was that you could create a much stronger case through proper selection and arrangement of facts than through manipulation of the facts themselves. Ideally, you want to present them in a way that a listener draws the conclusion you want for themselves, not because you have said it. To the extent that your comments here could be lifted from many editorial pages advocating one of the several viewpoints on the war, I think that Felton may have scored a point. For each of us, our analysis will be colored by the information sources we choose to believe and the filtering that has been done before the information gets to us.

Coming back on point. I disagree that Bush had no exit strategy. His exist strategy was, in retrospect, naive and poorly thought out, but it was an exit strategy that might have worked if the underlying assumptions proved true that the U.S. would be viewed as "liberators" (rather than "occupiers") and that the good will generated by that would extend to allowing us to help organize a new, widely supported, government. (See my comments above about powerpoint jockeys to get my opinion of this strategy). Given that the strategy is in shambles and that simple withdrawal would have potentially unacceptable consequences, what do we do to go forward?